"How nice it is to see the weather cooperate with the spirit and theme
of Green Lightning”,observed Bill Currie with deadpan irony as he
opened his remarks at the dedication ceremony for Billie Lawless's now
notorious sculpture. Currie, director of Hallwalls and a participant in
the Green Lightning saga, may have been punning on the miserable,
wet weather that night, Thursday, November 15, but his words certainly
had a prophetic note because this was probably one of the oddest public
art dedications to take place in Buffalo. Within a half-hour, following
the speakers' praises of "good citizen" Lawless, the artist came close
to being arrested, twice: once for being a pornographer and once for parking
on the grass.

Everyone is aware of the events that followed the dedication, but few
people know what actually happened, that night. Because some of the things
said that evening cast a shadow on the credibility of the Buffalo Arts
Commission (BAC) I think it is worth examining the event here.

The ceremony was orchestrated by BAC executive director David More.
More invited four speakers who made the kind of homages you expect to hear
at these events: Currie said that Lawless should be "praised, not just
for his work" on the installation, "but more importantly for his efforts
to show through hard work and persistence he could garner and get together
people from the private sector to donate and support his efforts as well
as getting the permits and the government to cooperate for this. sculpture."
Likewise, Dr. R. Bruce Johnstone, President of Buffalo State College, invited
the crowd to see one of Lawless's works located on his campus because "what
I think it represents is not only the talent and I think in this wonderful,
playful, whimsical piece here we see more of that talent, but also Billie
Lawless the citizen who makes it possible to put this public art in this
city." Artist and University of Buffalo instructor Dwayne Hatchett directed
his praise towards the city: "I congratulate it for continuing to be helpful
in experimentation in art and to the idea of further developing artists
and ideas.” Considering the glowing tone of these comments, I can only
wonder why the media, which was quick to characterize Lawless as an irresponsible
eccentric, wasn't so quick to ask these men if they had since reevaluated
their opinions? .

But the most ambiguous statements that evening were made by BAC chairman
Sam Magavern, who prefaced his introduction of the other speakers by saying
"some great man, in talking about art, said that 'art is disturbing, science
is reassuring'." Following the' lighting, a high-spirited moment with lots
of applause and cheering, I asked Mr. Magavern about his insights into
the piece. He said, "It is an unusual piece and people are going to be
surprised how it grows on them, in my opinion." When I asked him if the
piece would be controversial, he responded:

“As I said in opening, as one great man put it, art is disturbing
while science is reassuring.
I think it will be disturbing to many people, but I think it's like anything
else that's new, it
should disturb and art itself is meant to disturb, not to be complacent,
art, is something that
moves and moves you and moves along. It is interesting that art over the
years, you know,
becomes a historical record of our society because you have to look at
and you must
interpret it in the times it was created..”

These are stirring words, much more insightful and supportive than the
words in a letter he subsequently sent to Lawless's donors (see attached
letter).

Finally, I want to consider the words of BAC executive director David
More. He responded to my question about possible controversy by saying,
"I think most of the objections stemmed from a misunderstanding of the
piece. It's really lyrical and more whimsical and kind of humorous." Curiously,
More put the "objections" to
Green Lightning in the past tense as though there were questions raised
before the ceremony. But within a half-hour of talking with me, More would
be telling newsman Dan Hausle of Channel 7's "Eyewitness News" that Lawless
had misrepresented his work, that what he showed the BAC was not what people
saw lit up on the Elm-Oak arterial that night.

What followed the lighting is history. Shortly after the dignitaries
and most of the crowd left, the vice-squad showed up, scouring over the
now unplugged sculpture with their flashlights, looking for what officer
John Dugan described as the "male anatomy." (As a bizarre twist, Lawless
could also have been arrested for parking on the grass if he hadn't left
when he did because an officer had given him warning to move his car and
later on; the same officer mentioned the incident to someone in the crowd.)
The next day, a wrecking crew showed up. On the following Tuesday, ignoring
a truce of sorts worked out between the parties, a tree-removal crew dismantled
two of the panels and would have removed all four if it were not for the
restraining order issued by State Supreme Court Justice Vincent Doyle.

Offended by what it perceived as duplicity on Lawless's 'part, the city
seemed not to care that it might damage the artwork or that it might do
even more serious damage to its reputation as an arts and cultural center.
Promoting that reputation is clearly one of the roles of the BAC, but its
actions have seriously hurt its own credibility.

Consider the letter sent by Chairman Magavern to Lawless's patrons.
How else can it be interpreted except as a ploy to shift responsibility
from the BAC to the artist and ensure that these donors put pressure on
Lawless to take down his work? The letter is full of doubtful claims and
unsettling statements. Mr. Magavern writes, "The sculpture has not been
damaged." As a witness to the dismantling, I saw the crew cutting apart
sections of the steel structure with torches, parts that will have to be
replaced by the artist. In a December 1st article in the Buffalo News,
Lawless pointed out water damage to the panels as well as structural damages
to the installation. Lawless has recently set the damage figure at $13,300.

Mr. Magavern, in explaining that the BAC "did not see or pass upon"
the neon figures in Green Lightning, explains, "This picture conveys
an entirely different and unrelated picture that is pornographic and vulgar."
Interestingly, the people at Sculpture Outdoors/1984, in Philadelphia,
saw the same materials as the BAC, including the maquette. with its acetate
drawings of the pesky neon figures, arid they did not find the work
salacious. And neither did Mr. Magavern himself, as is reported in Friday,
November 16th Buffalo News. Concerning the work at the opening, Mr. Magavern
is quoted as saying: "'I just can't believe there's anything salacious
there' " (but to be fair, the full quote reads: " 'But if there's any doubt
about it, we'll have to take care of it right away'.") However, on Thursday,
the 15th, Mr. Magavern himself raised the issue of how .Green Lightning
would be disturbing to some people; for that evening, at least, that didn't
seem to be a problem for him.

But the oddest statement in the letter is this one: "The average person,
including myself and others familiar with art, and I believe the general
public, might not have seen its vulgar connotation on first viewing. However,
when pointed out and focused on by the television and press, the new picture
thus superimposed is unmistakably objectionable ...." Contrary to Mr. Magavern's
assertion, the neon was absolutely obvious to everyone present atthe opening,
but no one was shocked (again, to refer to the News article on November
16,, Mr. Magavern pointed out that "several dignitaries gathered at Wednesday's
[sic] ceremony were not offended by, the sculpture [sic]..."). It was only
after the television media exploited their news footage sensationalizing
the work by labelling it pornographic, that Lawless was attacked. Mr. Magaven's
comments about the disturbing quality of art are probably genuinely felt,
but the damning assertionsthat the work is "vulgar" and "pornographic"
reflect the pressure brought to bear on him by public opinion (" 'If people
see something in it that's wrong, we have to change it'," again from the
News, November 16).

Frankly, Mr. Magavern's statement raises a disturbing question: as the
agency that is supposed to evaluate what is acceptable public artwork,
isn't it BAC'S responsibility to carefully examine projects they approve?.
Does the BAC really need local TV news to help them make aesthetic judgments?
Can they really get out' of a bad judgment by publically attacking an artist
they sponsored?

Mr. Magavern isn't the only one who changed his tune once the heat was
turned up. At the ,Tuesday evening dismantling, David More was now calling
the piece a "hoax" (what happened to the possibility of a misunderstanding?).
When I asked him how it was possible that he could have followed this project
through City Hall for close to two years and not be aware. of what he was
getting himself into, More claimed that Lawless had cleverly concealed
his intentions: "To the best of my recollection, I saw no indication of
anything like what was portrayed in neon once it was turned on ...it would
have been an obligation on the part of Billie Lawless to come out and tell
people it had a potentially suggestive nature. He did not do that." More
may not have seen the figures, but according to another News article, dated
December 2, the neon figures are indeed on the slide documentation Lawless
used in raising funds (the News article points out that the figures are
difficult to see to the "unaided eye." Interestingly, More, in an article
on November 30, wouldn't reveal if the BAC had pictures of the maquette
because of the impending court case).

It is quite possible that at a meeting like the one held by the BAC
to approve Green Lightning the figures on Lawless's maquette might
have been obscure. Someone who attended that meeting and who was
familiar with the piece told me that she had not seen them. And neither
if first did Marsha Moss, the director of Sculpture Outdoors 1984,
in Philadelphia. However, what happened when she did see them is very revealing.

During a phone conversation, Ms: Moss explained tome that the figures
were brought to her attention by a city official who is involved with the
arts and who noticed them on Lawless's documentation. As she explained,
"Billie's maquette is so clearly what it is that you couldn't pass it off
after a second look."

The work had been accepted for public display last summer. Was she concerned
about possible negative reactions? "Yes, it occurred to me. I talked to
city officials about it. They agreed that it shouldn't be rejected because
of its imagery. The city was not involved in its selection. I showed them
the slides because I needed their support and encouragement. There was
no hesitancy."

She further explained that there was discussion about the piece's imagery:
"Nobody thought it was offensive”.

"I considered its artistic merit, and I didn't make an issue of possible
public response. If a piece isn't noticed, it isn't worth. putting up.
I would not have expected the kind of public response it got in Buffalo."

Interestingly, Moss did not feel that Lawless had to be explicit in
identifying the figures as penises. "They are semi-abstracted. If he calls
them 'abstract figures celebrating life,' that's his prerogative."

Clearly, the BAC does not share Moss's attitudes. It now remains for
the courts to decide whether Billie Lawless intentionally misrepresented
his work to the city. But the fact that the BAC would hold a public ceremony
and then go on record attacking an artist they supported, not question
the reckless actions of the city, send correspondence to the artist's contributors
and deny his work was damaged, all of these actions are questionable. Do
artists really want their work publicly represented by these people?